PS69CH18-Falk ARI 19 September 2017 14:30 Annual Review of Psychology Persuasion, Influence, and Value: Perspectives from Communication and Social Neuroscience Emily Falk1,2,3 and Christin Scholz1 1Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104; email: [email protected], [email protected] 2Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 3Marketing Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018. 69:18.1–18.28 Keywords The Annual Review of Psychology is online at persuasion, social influence, communication, value, neuroscience, fMRI psych.annualreviews.org https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216- Abstract Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018.69. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org 011821 Opportunities to persuade and be persuaded are ubiquitous. What deter- c Access provided by University of Pennsylvania on 10/20/17. For personal use only. Copyright 2018 by Annual Reviews. ! mines whether influence spreads and takes hold? This review provides an All rights reserved overview of evidence for the central role of subjective valuation in persua- sion and social influence for both propagators and receivers of influence. We first review evidence that decisions to communicate information are deter- mined by the subjective value a communicator expects to gain from sharing. We next review evidence that the effects of social influence and persuasion on receivers, in turn, arise from changes in the receiver’s subjective valuation of objects, ideas, and behaviors. We then review evidence that self-related and social considerations are two key inputs to the value calculation in both com- municators and receivers. Finally, we highlight biological coupling between communicators and receivers as a mechanism through which perceptions of value can be transmitted. 18.1 PS69CH18-Falk ARI 19 September 2017 14:30 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION . 18.2 2. THE ROLE OF VALUATION IN COMMUNICATION, PERSUASION, AND SOCIALINFLUENCE........................................................ 18.4 2.1. The Communicator’s Perspective . 18.5 2.2.TheReceiver’sPerspective.................................................. 18.6 2.3. Open Questions About the Role of the Value System in Persuasion andSocialInfluence.........................................................18.11 3. SELECTED INPUTS TO THE VALUE COMPUTATION . .18.11 3.1.TheValueofSelf-Relevance................................................18.11 3.2. Social Relevance and Value Processing . .18.15 3.3. Open Questions About Inputs to the Value Calculation. .18.17 4. BIOLOGICAL COUPLING AS AN INDEX OF SUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATION AND INFLUENCE ....................................18.18 4.1. Communication Between Pairs . .18.18 4.2. Synchrony Across Audiences . .18.19 4.3. Open Questions Relevant to Biological Synchrony and Communication . .18.20 5.FUTUREDIRECTIONS ......................................................18.20 5.1.SocialNetworksandtheBrain..............................................18.20 5.2. Brain Network Dynamics Supporting Social Influence and Persuasion. .18.21 5.3. Cultural and Environmental Determinants. .18.21 5.4. Implicit and Explicit Motivations . .18.21 6.CONCLUSION................................................................18.21 1. INTRODUCTION People’s preferences and behaviors are strongly influenced by others. A daughter encourages her parent to stop smoking. A coach shares an inspirational news article to raise team morale. A person, let’s call her Emily, is more likely to take the stairs to her fifth-floor office if she is with her sporty colleague, let’s call her Christin, than if she is with colleagues who prefer the elevator. Knowing that Emily respects Christin’s healthy lifestyle would also increase Christin’s willingness to actively Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018.69. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org encourage Emily because she can expect Emily to think more positively of her and respond with Access provided by University of Pennsylvania on 10/20/17. For personal use only. appreciation rather than rejection. In parallel, knowing that Christin likes taking the stairs might make the personal health and social benefits of stair taking more salient to Emily than the ease of Subjective value: taking the elevator. aperson-and In this review, we argue that the diverse set of thought processes that determine what informa- situation-specific tion communicators share (e.g., facts about smoking, an inspirational news article, encouragement estimate of choice to take the stairs) and whether receivers are influenced (e.g., to quit smoking, to train harder for value (c) from the weighted average of a sport, to take the stairs) do so via a common pathway, namely subjective value maximization. differently valued Valuation involves explicitly and implicitly weighing perceived costs and benefits to derive the choice-relevant value of choices or actions and has been conceptualized as a motivating force for action (Bartra dimensions (d): et al. 2013, Levy & Glimcher 2012). In other words, people make choices to maximize the value SV(c) !weight = d × they expect from their actions. In this review, we examine the role of this broad class of value value d calculations in decisions to share information (Section 2.1) and susceptibility to influence in infor- mation receivers (Section 2.2). Among multiple person-level, social, and environmental factors, 18.2 Falk Scholz · PS69CH18-Falk ARI 19 September 2017 14:30 The brain’s value system Coupling Communicator’s perspective Receiver’s perspective Self-relevance Self-relevance Valuation Valuation Social relevance Social relevance Figure 1 Overview of persuasion and social influence from the perspectives of communicators and receivers. The brain image depicts the ventral striatum and parts of ventromedial prefrontal cortex from an automated meta-analysis of studies that involve the term “value.” Figure made using http://neurosynth.org. we highlight self-relevance (Section 3.1) and social relevance (Section 3.2) as inputs to the value computation and neural coupling (Section 4) as a process through which subjective value may be transmitted between communicators and receivers (see Figure 1). Our argument is grounded in social science research on active forms of persuasion (e.g., trying to convince a loved one to quit smoking or being persuaded by a public service announcement; for a review, see Albarracin & Shavitt 2018), more passive forms of social influence (e.g., taking the stairs because others are doing it; for a review, see Cialdini & Goldstein 2004) and inter- personal contagion (e.g., sharing an inspiring news article; for a review, see Berger 2014). Core aspects of prior theories in each of these domains have implicitly focused on people’s attempts to Persuasion: changes maximize subjective value when making decisions about sharing information or being influenced. in preferences or We highlight these elements and explicitly conceptualize each as a form of a more general class behaviors in of value-based decision making. This conceptualization creates a bridge across prior theories, as information receivers well as a concrete link to the previously disconnected literature on neuroscientific underpinnings conforming to active attempts by a of subjective valuation, which has served as a guiding force in understanding a more general set communicator to of choices and actions in other domains. encourage such Recent findings in neuroscience provide insights into how the brain calculates and represents changes subjective value in service of decision making (see Bartra et al. 2013, Clithero & Rangel 2014, Levy Social influence: Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018.69. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org & Glimcher 2012). This neural perspective suggests that brain systems that calculate subjective changes in preferences Access provided by University of Pennsylvania on 10/20/17. For personal use only. value represent a final common pathway or common currency through which different decision or behaviors resulting alternatives (e.g., sharing one piece of information or another, taking the stairs or the elevator) can from passive observation of others’ be reconciled, prioritized, and realized in behavior and preferences (Bartra et al. 2013, Kable & actions, inferences Glimcher 2009). As such, conceptualizing persuasion and social influence in terms of value-based about others’ decision making complements and extends prior theorizing in fruitful ways. perspectives, and There are several other advantages to linking psychological and economic models of persuasion, broader social norms social influence, and successful communication more broadly to neural models of value-based Value-based decision decision making. First, neural models offer a specific way to quantify the relationship between making: choice inputs to the subjective value calculation and the resulting decisions and actions. For example, selection based on the extent to which each expectancy value models of behavior change (Fishbein & Ajzen 2011) suggest that the overall option is positively or probability of choosing a particular option is determined by the average value of the expected negatively valued consequences of each choice weighted by their likelihood of occurrence. For instance, Emily will be more likely to take the stairs if she believes that the chances of a positive outcome, such as www.annualreviews.org Persuasion, Influence, and Value 18.3